The New Hieroglyphics. Read the Bill!!!

[applecorped]

From the New and Improved Health Care Bill.

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.



:faint:

[Brainster]

I don't have any trouble reading this part (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWVlOGUxYWEyNGFhYWM5Y2IwNWNhZmE0NmFiZGJlYTI=):

Well, buried in the 1,990 pages of the House health-care bill that was released on Thursday by Pelosi is a provision in Section 2531 that provides incentive payments to states that provide “an alternative medical liability law” that prevents or prompts “fair resolution” of disputes. However, no such incentive will be paid to any state that limits “attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”

The lawsuit protection party rolls on.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ah, talking head points.

(Did you consider there might be a reason why the Dems are relucant to cap lawsuits? Other than what you claim? (also, as has been posted elsewhere, doesn't really help much.))

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Seems straightforward to me :confused: .

[ktesibios]

[pedant mode ON]

"Hieroglyphic" is an adjective. The noun is "hieroglyph".

examples:

1. "The hieroglyphic text on the Rosetta Stone could be deciphered by comparison to the Greek text on the same stone."

2. "The walls of the burial chamber are covered with hieroglyphs."

[pedant mode OFF]

It's a minor pet peeve of mine.

[applecorped]

How about: the hieroglyphic-like text contained in the new Health Care Plan would require the Rosetta Stone software to decipher?

[MikeMangum]

Ah, talking head points.

(Did you consider there might be a reason why the Dems are relucant to cap lawsuits? Other than what you claim? (also, as has been posted elsewhere, doesn't really help much.))

And, of course, there might be just as valid of a reason that Democrats are reluctant to cap lawyers' fees. It's probably the same reason, actually.

What that could be? Who knows (http://www.campaignmoney.com/Trial_Lawyer.asp)?

Political Campaign Contribution Totals

Download All Contribution Records from Trial Lawyer 1999 - present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type

Total Contribution Dollar Amount $1,301,696 (1999 - Present)
Average Contribution Dollar Amount $748
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $132,250 (10% of total)
Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $623
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $1,032,517 (79% of total)
Average Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $817


What could it possibly be (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01)?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065
American Assn for Justice

Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), this group of plaintiffs' attorneys and others in the legal profession now goes by the name of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and boasts 56,000 members worldwide. A lobbying heavyweight, the association has been battling any attempt at tort reform, including recent proposals to cap awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. AAJ also lobbies Congress on any legislation that may inhibit the ability of consumers to bring lawsuits, particularly against health care providers, asbestos companies or insurance companies processing claims related to terrorism. The association favors Democrats, who oppose most attempts to initiate tort reform.

...

House # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats 222 $4,038 $896,500
Republicans 14 $2,071 $29,000
Independents 0 $0 $0
TOTAL 236 $3,921 $925,500
The US House of Representatives has 435 members.

Senate # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats 21 $4,690 $98,500
Republicans 2 $2,250 $4,500
Independents 1 $41 $1,000
TOTAL 24 $4,333 $104,000
The US Senate has 100 members.

I can't seem to figure it out (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Trial-lawyers-seek-return-on-contributions-to-Senate-Democrats-53177542.html).
In February, just two months before he became a Democrat, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania made a passionate plea for a special tax break for plaintiffs' trial lawyers. His bill, S 437, would allow trial lawyers to deduct immediately on their taxes up-front expenses they incur when investing in contingency lawsuits.

The tax break is reportedly worth $1.6 billion to trial lawyers. If Specter’s amendment passes, this single provision would more than repay the legal industry for its roughly $762 million in political contributions to Democrats over the last two decades.

Which would, in turn, mean more money could be recycled and funneled back to Democrats.

An Examiner analysis of the 15 firms on the National Law Journal's "2008 Plaintiff's Hot List" shows that for 2009, their employees have contributed $636,305 to federal politicians and PACs. Only $4,875 of that amount has gone to Republicans, meaning that the nation's top trial lawyers are giving more than 99 percent Democratic this year. The PAC for the American Association of Justice, the top trial lawyer lobbying group, has been marginally more balanced, giving Democrats a mere 96 percent of its $627,000 in contributions.

I think that famous right winger Howard Dean (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Why-Democrats-wont-cross-the-trial-lawyers-56319257.html) might have it figured out, though.
“The reason tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.”

The trial lawyers from just the top 15 law firms have given in one year over half a billion dollars to democrats.

It apparently wasn't any different a decade ago. From the NYT: Trial Lawyers Pour Money Into Democrats' Chests (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/23/us/trial-lawyers-pour-money-into-democrats-chests.html)

To answer your question, yes, I do think there is a reason that the Dems are reluctant to cap lawsuits. It might have something to do with the fact that lawyers are the single biggest source of compaign contributions to Democrats.

[rwguinn]

And, of course, there might be just as valid of a reason that Democrats are reluctant to cap lawyers' fees. It's probably the same reason, actually.

What that could be? Who knows (http://www.campaignmoney.com/Trial_Lawyer.asp)?



What could it possibly be (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01)?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065


I can't seem to figure it out (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Trial-lawyers-seek-return-on-contributions-to-Senate-Democrats-53177542.html).


I think that famous right winger Howard Dean (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Why-Democrats-wont-cross-the-trial-lawyers-56319257.html) might have it figured out, though.


The trial lawyers from just the top 15 law firms have given in one year over half a billion dollars to democrats.

It apparently wasn't any different a decade ago. From the NYT: Trial Lawyers Pour Money Into Democrats' Chests (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/23/us/trial-lawyers-pour-money-into-democrats-chests.html)

To answer your question, yes, I do think there is a reason that the Dems are reluctant to cap lawsuits. It might have something to do with the fact that lawyers are the single biggest source of compaign contributions to Democrats.
Ha! All circumstantial evidence and hear say.
The real reason is because Democrats never make mistakes, being superior beings. "Human Error" is just another term for "I did it on purpose, just to cause problems/death/destruction"

[Brainster]

Ah, talking head points.

(Did you consider there might be a reason why the Dems are relucant to cap lawsuits? Other than what you claim?

Yeah, Obama said it's not fair (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/15/obama_booed_at_ama_over_malpractice_remarks.html) that John Edwards has the largest house in his county (http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848). It should be the largest house in all of North Carolina. It's the two Americas thing.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Congratulations. You've gotten that they current provide the most money to the Dems. By that logic, the reason Republicans don't limit Oil is based on funding.

Whereas I'm betting that it's because (more than that) historically, the Democrats don't favor tort reform and the Republicans favor expanding Oil drilling might explain why they get more funding (i.e you fund people who agree with you)

(TBF, it could be 50/50.)

Brainster: Uhm.. why in the hell would I care about John Edwards? (Seriously, the only time I voted for him was when I lived in Raleigh. Wait, I voted against him. Never really liked him.)

(I will note that really, your argument /avoids/ the point that maybe, just maybe, they already agreed with it.)

[Dr Adequate]

From the New and Improved Health Care Bill.

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”. And your point was?

[maxpower1227]

If Specter’s amendment passes, this single provision would more than repay the legal industry for its roughly $762 million in political contributions to Democrats over the last two decades.

The trial lawyers from just the top 15 law firms have given in one year over half a billion dollars to democrats.

I'm having a little trouble following the math here.

[applecorped]

And your point was?


"I was on acid and I looked at the trees and I realized that they all came to points, and the little branches came to points, and the houses came to point. I thought, 'Oh! Everything has a point, and if it doesn't, then there's a point to it.'" – Harry Nilsson



:whistling

[MikeMangum]

I'm having a little trouble following the math here.

The difference is in direct contributions to individual candidates and contributions to "soft money" funds like the DCCC (http://www.dccc.org/) or the DSCC (http://www.dscc.org/). There are limits to how much money an individual can donate to a specific candidate, but no limit to how much money they can give to the DCCC or DSCC (and others). The DCCC and DSCC can then give unlimited amounts of money to any candidates that are felt to be the most vulnerable.

Adding both contributions to specific candidates and contributions gives the total.

[Dr Adequate]

"I was on acid and I looked at the trees and I realized that they all came to points, and the little branches came to points, and the houses came to point. I thought, 'Oh! Everything has a point, and if it doesn't, then there's a point to it.'" – Harry Nilsson You know, I thought that that might be your point. But I didn't want to prejudge you.

[DevilsAdvocate]

From the New and Improved Health Care Bill.

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.I hope you understand that ALL U.S. federal legislation and regulations are written like that. That is not unique to any health care bill.

And there are reasons that legislation and regulations are written that way. If you have ever been responsible for maintaining a large set of rules or requirements, then you have found the difficulties in tracking and presenting changes, especially if you need to present just the CHANGES for a committee review without exposing the whole text to the committee for review.

I understand that it may look foreign to you, but it is not unusual or unreasonable. Well, maybe unreasonable. With current technology I think it is possible to display the rules in a readable and interpretive state that can be understood by common rules. Congress is a bit old fashioned (and possibly reasonably so).

[applecorped]

You know, I thought that that might be your point. But I didn't want to prejudge you.


You thought my point was a Harry Nilsson song? Damn, you're good!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I hope you understand that ALL U.S. federal legislation and regulations are written like that. That is not unique to any health care bill.

That's what I was thinking.

Is this another thread that argues that health care reform shouldn't be passed because the bill is very large, complex and full of legalese and jargon?

I'm just curious as to whether the people who espouse this argument applied it consistently to the Energy Bill of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005) or the Medicare Reform Bill of 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Moder nization_Act).

[applecorped]

Is this another thread that argues that health care reform shouldn't be passed because the bill is very large, complex and full of legalese and jargon?



I don't know. Is it?